Earth Resistance Testing

GDTE.
qxp 12/2/05 8:35 AM Page 1
US $9.95
GBP £5.95
Getting
Down
To Earth
A practical guide to
earth resistance testing
WWW.MEGGER.COM/det
GDTE.qxp 12/2/05 8:35 AM Page 2
Introduction
Nothing is quite so common or abundantly available throughout the
world as the earth’s soil. We are more apt to think of earth as something
to be tilled for planting or to be excavated for a building foundation. Yet,
it also has an electrical property -- conductivity (or low resistance) -- that
is put to practical use every day in industrial plants and utilities.
Broadly speaking, “earth resistance” is the resistance of soil to the
passage of electric current. Actually, the earth is a relatively poor
conductor of electricity compared to normal conductors like copper wire.
But, if the area of a path for current is large enough, resistance can be
quite low and the earth can be a good conductor. It is the earth’s
abundance and availability that make it an indispensable component of a
properly functioning electrical system.
Earth resistance is measured in two ways for two important fields of use:
1. Determining effectiveness of “ground” grids and connections that are
used with electrical systems to protect personnel and equipment.
2. Prospecting for good (low resistance) “ground” locations, or obtaining
measured resistance values that can give specific information about what
lies some distance below the earth’s surface (such as depth to bed rock).
It is not the intent of this manual to go too deeply into the theory and
mathematics of the subject. As noted in the references at the end, there
are many excellent books and papers that cover these. Rather, the
information herein is in simple language for easy understanding by the
user in industry.
From years of experience in supplying instruments for the tests involved,
Megger can provide advice to help you make specific tests. We would be
pleased to have a representative call on you to discuss your problem.
©2005 Megger www.megger.com
GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX I

Nomograph Guide to Getting Acceptable Earth Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 APPENDIX II
Clamp-On Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
SECTION I
Measuring Earth Resistance for Electrical Grounding Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 6 APPENDIX III
Factors That Can Change Your Minimum Earth Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Attached Rod Technique (ART). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Some Basic Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 APPENDIX IV
Factors Influencing Requirements for a Good Grounding System. . . . . . 9 Measurement of the Resistance of Large Earth-Electrode Systems:
National Electrical Code Maximum Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Intersecting Curves Method 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Nature of an Earth Electrode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Test at a Large Substation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Principles Involved in Earth Resistance Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Basic Test Methods for Earth Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 APPENDIX V
Effects of Different Reference Probe Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Slope Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Lazy Spikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Supplementary Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 APPENDIX VI
Four Potential Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
How to Improve Earth Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
APPENDIX VII
SECTION II
Star Delta Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Earth Resistivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
How Earth Resistivity is Measured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 APPENDIX VIII
Practical Example of Test Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Determining Touch and Step Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Type of Soil Affects Resistivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDIX IX
Resistivity Decreases with Moisture and Dissolved Salts. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Ground Testing Methods Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Effect of Temperature on Earth Resistivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Seasonal Variations in Earth Resistivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 GROUND TESTERS AVAILABLE FROM MEGGER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Determining a Good Electrode Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
SECTION III
Accurately Measuring Earth Resistance for Large Ground Systems. . . . . . . 42
Testing Challenges in Large Ground Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Addressing the Testing Challenges in Large Ground Systems . . . . . . . . 44
2 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 3

TABLE OF FIGURES Safety

Fig. Page
There is an inherent safety problem in earth resistance testing that
1 A simplified grounding system in an industrial plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
requires care and planning by the user of the test set.
2 Example of an electrical circuit with too high an earth resistance . . . .8
3 Typical conditions to be considered in a plant ground system . . . . . . .9 The possibility exists that a fault in the power system will cause a high
4 Components of earth resistances in an earth electrode . . . . . . . . . . .12 current to flow into the ground system while the test is in progress. This
5 Principle of an earth resistance test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 may cause unexpected high voltages to appear at the current and voltage
6 Fall-of-potential or three-terminal earth resistance test . . . . . . . . . . .17 probes and also at the terminals of the test set.
7 Dead earth method or two-point earth resistance test . . . . . . . . . . . .17
8 Effect of C location on the earth resistance curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 This risk must be evaluated by the person responsible for the tests, taking
9 Example of how C location affects the earth resistance curve . . . . . .22 into account the fault current available and expected step-and-touch
10 Earth resistance decreases with depth of electrode in earth . . . . . . .27 potentials. IEEE Standard 80 entitled “IEEE Guide for Safety in AC
11 Diameter of a rod has little effect on its earth resistance . . . . . . . . . .28 Substation Grounding” fully covers this subject. (Other standards may
12 Average results obtained from multiple-rod earth electrodes . . . . . .29 prevail elsewhere in the world.)
13 Comparative resistance of multiple-rod earth electrodes . . . . . . . . . .29
14 Trench method of soil treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
We recommend that the operator wear rubber protective gloves
15 Chemical treatment of soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 (ANSI/ASTM D120 or equal) while handling connections and use a rubber
16 Four-terminal method of measuring earth resistivity . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 safety mat (ANSI/ASTM D178 or equal) while operating the test set.
17 Earth resistivity survey of pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
18 Graphs showing relation between soil and resistance . . . . . . . . . . . .35
19 Seasonal variation of earth resistance with an electrode . . . . . . . . .39
20 Method of prospecting for best earth electrode location . . . . . . . . .40
21 Nomograph relating the basic factors affecting earth resistance . . .47
22 Basic clamp-on ground testing methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
23 Pole ground application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
24 Cellular tower application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
25 Ground resistance measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
26 Leakage current measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
27 Attached Rod Technique (ART) measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
28 Earth resistance curve applicable to systems of a large area . . . . . . .59
29 Earth resistance curves for a substation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
30 Intersection curves for Fig. 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
31 Potential probe locations for using the slope method . . . . . . . . . . . .63
32 Four potential method test configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
33 Star-Delta test configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
34 Making a two-point measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
35 Method of use for determining touch and step potential . . . . . . . . .71

SECTION I Factors That Can Change Your Minimum Earth Resistance

Measuring Earth Resistance We will discuss later what value of earth resistance is considered low
for Electrical Grounding Systems
enough. You’ll see that there is no general rule usable for all cases. First,
The simplest and somewhat misleading idea of a good ground for an however, consider three factors that can change the earth electrode
electrical system is a section of iron pipe driven into the earth with a wire requirements from year to year:
conductor connected from the pipe to the electrical circuit (Fig. 1). This
may, or may not, be a suitable low resistance path for electric current to I A plant or other electrical facility can expand in size. Also, new plants
protect personnel and equipment. continue to be built larger and larger. Such changes create different
needs in the earth electrode. What was formerly a suitably low earth
Lightning Rod resistance can become an obsolete “standard.”
I As facilities add more modern sensitive computer-controlled
Plant Electric
Wiring
equipment, the problems of electrical noise is magnified. Noise that
would not effect cruder, older equipment can cause daily problems
Electric
Motor with new equipment.
Electric
Wire
I As more nonmetallic pipes and conduits are installed underground,
such installations become less and less dependable as effective, low-
Earth Electrode
resistance ground connections.
(Pipe driven into ground)
I In many locations, the water table is gradually falling. In a year or so,
earth electrode systems that formerly were effective may end up in dry
Earth
earth of high resistance.
Fig. 1: A simplified grounding system in an industrial plant These factors emphasize the importance of a continuous, periodic
A practical earth electrode that provides a low ground resistance is not program of earth-resistance testing. It is not enough to check the earth
always easy to obtain. But from experience gained by others you can resistance only at the time of installation.
learn how to set up a reliable system and how to check the resistance Some Basic Definitions
value with reasonable accuracy. As you will see, earth resistivity (refer to First, let’s define our terms. As early as 19181, the terms ground,
Section II) has an important bearing on electrode resistance, as does the permanent ground, and ground connections were defined to mean
depth, size and shape of the electrode. “electrical connections intentionally made between electrical bodies (or
The principles and methods of earth resistance testing covered in this conducting bodies in close proximity to electrical circuits) and metallic
section apply to lightning arrester installations as well as to other systems bodies in the earth — such as rods, water pipes, plates, or driven pipes.”
that require low resistance ground connections. Such tests are made in
power-generating stations, electrical-distribution systems, industrial
plants, and telecommunication systems. 1 Reference 19

The metallic body in the earth is often referred to as an electrode even Equipment can also be damaged similarly by overvoltages caused by high-
though it may be a water-pipe system, buried strips or plates, or wires. resistance ground systems.
Such combinations of metallic bodies are called a grid. The earth
Factors Influencing Requirements for a Good Grounding
resistance we’re concerned with is the resistance to current from the
System
electrode into the surrounding earth.
In an industrial plant or other facility that requires a grounding system,
To appreciate why earth resistance must be low, you need only use Ohm’s one or more of the following must be carefully considered (see Fig. 3):
Law: E = R x I where E is volts; R, the resistance in ohms; and I, the
current in amperes. Assume that you have a 4000-V supply (2300 V to 1. Limiting to definite values the voltage to earth of the entire electrical
ground) with a resistance of 13 Ω (see Fig. 2). Now, assume that an system. Use of a suitable grounding system can do this by maintaining
exposed wire in this system touches a motor frame that is connected to a some point in the circuit at earth potential. Such a grounding system
grounding system which has a 10-ohm resistance to earth. provides these advantages:
By Ohm’s Law, there will be a current of 100 A2 through the fault (from I Limits voltage to which the system-to-ground insulation is subjected,
the motor frame to the earth). If you happen to touch the motor frame thereby more definitely fixing the insulation rating.
and are grounded solidly to earth, (by standing in a puddle) you I Limits the system-to-ground or system-to-frame voltage to values
could be subjected to 1000 V (10 Ω x 100 A). safe for personnel.
As you’ll note from point 2 in the following, this may be more than I Provides a relatively stable system with a minimum of transient
enough to kill you instantly. If, however, the earth resistance is less than overvoltages.
1 Ω, the shock you’d get would be under 100 V (1 x 100) and you’d
probably live to correct the fault. I Permits any system fault to ground to be quickly isolated.
Fig. 2: Example of an electrical circuit with too high an earth resistance
2 I = E/R = 2,300/ (10 + 13) = 100 amperes Fig. 3: Typical conditions to be considered in a plant ground system

2. Proper grounding of metallic enclosures and support structures that are Resistance to earth can vary with changes in climate and temperature.
part of the electrical system and may be contacted by personnel. Also Such changes can be considerable. An earth electrode that was good
to be included are portable electrically operated devices. Consider that (low-resistance) when installed may not stay that way; to be sure, you
only a small amount of electric current — as little as 0.1 A for one must check it periodically.
second — can be fatal! An even smaller amount can cause you to lose
We cannot tell you what your maximum earth resistance should be. For
muscular control. These low currents can occur in your body at
specific systems in definite locations, specifications are often set. Some
voltages as low as 100 V, if your skin is moist.
call for 5 Ω maximum; others accept no more than 3 Ω. In certain cases,
3. Protection against static electricity from friction. Along with this are the resistances as low as a small fraction of an ohm are required.
attendant hazards of shock, fire and explosion. Moving objects that
Nature of an Earth Electrode
may be inherent insulators - such as paper, textiles, conveyor belts or
power belts and rubberized fabrics - can develop surprisingly high Resistance to current through an earth electrode actually has three
charges unless properly grounded. components (Fig. 4):
4. Protection against direct lightning strokes. Elevated structures, such as 1. Resistance of the electrode itself and connections to it.
stacks, the building proper, and water tanks may require lightning rods 2. Contact resistance between the electrode and the soil adjacent to it.
connected into the grounding system.
3. Resistance of the surrounding earth.
5. Protection against induced lightning voltages. This is particularly a
factor if aerial power distribution and communications circuits are
involved. Lightning arresters may be required in strategic locations
throughout the plant.
6. Providing good grounds for electric process control and communication
circuits. With the increased use of industrial control instruments,
computers, and communications equipment, accessibility of low-
resistance ground connections in many plant locations — in office and
production areas — must be considered.
National Electrical Code Maximum Values
The National Electrical Code, Section 250-56 states that a single electrode
with a resistance to ground greater than 25 Ω shall be augmented by
one additional electrode. (Other standards may prevail elsewhere in the
world.)
We recommend that single-electrode grounds be tested when
The Megger DET2/2 ground tester offers additional features for testing
installed and periodically afterward. in a high-noise environment

Electrode Resistance: Rods, pipes, masses of metal, structures, and somewhat larger in area and offers less resistance. Finally, a distance from
other devices are commonly used for earth connections. These are usually the electrode will be reached where inclusion of additional earth shells
of sufficient size or cross-section that their resistance is a negligible part does not add significantly to the resistance of the earth surrounding the
of the total resistance. electrode. It is this critical volume of soil that determines the effectiveness
of the ground electrode and which therefore must be effectively
Electrode-Earth Contact Resistance: This is much less than you might measured in order to make this determination. Ground testing is distinct
think. If the electrode is free from paint or grease, and the earth is when compared to more familiar forms of electrical measurement, in that
packed firmly, contact resistance is negligible. Rust on an iron electrode it is a volumetric measurement and cannot be treated as a “point”
has little or no effect; the iron oxide is readily soaked with water and has property.
Generally, the resistance of the surrounding earth will be the largest of
the three components making up the resistance of a ground connection.
The several factors that can affect this value are discussed in Section II on
Earth Resistivity. From Section II, you’ll see that earth resistivity depends
on the soil material, the moisture content, and the temperature. It is far
from a constant, predictable value ranging generally from 500 to 50,000
ohm-cm3.
Principles Involved in Earth Resistance Testing
The resistance to earth of any system of electrodes theoretically can be
calculated from formulas based upon the general resistance formula:
R=ρ L
A
where ρ is the resistivity of the earth in ohm-cm, L is the length of the

Fig. 4: Components of earth resistances in an earth electrode
conducting path, and A is the cross-sectional area of the path. Prof. H. B.
less resistance than most soils. But if an iron pipe has rusted through, the Dwight of Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed rather
part below the break is not effective as a part of the earth electrode. complex formulas for the calculation of the resistance to earth for any
distance from various systems of electrodes (Reference 11). All such
Resistance of Surrounding Earth: An electrode driven into earth of
formulas can be simplified a little by basing them on the assumption that
uniform resistivity radiates current in all directions. Think of the electrode
as being surrounded by shells of earth, all of equal thickness (see Fig. 4). the earth’s resistivity is uniform throughout the entire soil volume under
consideration.
The earth shell nearest the electrode naturally has the smallest surface
area and so offers the greatest resistance. The next earth shell is
3 An ohm-centimeter (abbreviated ohm-cm) is defined as the resistance of a cube of material
(in this case, earth) with the cube sides being measured in centimeters.

Because the formulas are complicated, and earth resistivity is neither To understand the principle of earth testing, consider the schematic
uniform or constant, a simple and direct method of measuring earth diagram in Fig. 5a. Bear in mind our previous observation with reference
resistance is needed. This is where we come in with our Megger Ground to the earth shell diagram in Fig. 4: with increased distance from an
Resistance Tester, a self-contained portable instrument that is reliable and electrode, the earth shells are of greater surface area and therefore of
easy to use. With it, you can check the resistance of your earth electrode lower resistance. Now, assume that you have three rods driven into the
while it is being installed; and, by periodic tests, observe any changes earth some distance apart and a voltage applied, as shown in Fig. 5a. The
with time. current between rods 1 and 2 is measured by an ammeter; the potential
difference (voltage) between rods 1 and 3 is measured by a voltmeter.
If rod 3 is located at various points between rods 1 and 2, preferably in a
straight line4, you can get a series of voltage readings. By Ohm’s Law
(R = E/I) you can determine the earth resistance at any point measured.
For example, if the measured voltage E between rods 1 and 3 is 30 V and
the measured current I is 2 A, the resistance of the earth R at that point
(a)
would be 15 Ω.
The series of resistance values can be plotted against distance to obtain a
curve (Fig. 5b). Note that as rod 3 is moved away from rod 1, the
resistance values increase, but the amount of increase gets less and less
until a point is reached where the rate of increase becomes so small that I
can almost be considered constant (20 Ω in Fig. 5b). The earth shells
between the two rods (1 and 3) have so great a surface area that they
add little to the total resistance. Beyond this point, as rod 3 approaches
the earth shells of rod 2, resistance gradually picks up. Near rod 2, the
values rise sharply.
(b)
Now, let’s say that rod 1 is our earth electrode under test. From a typical
earth-resistance curve, such as Fig. 5b, what is the resistance to earth of
this rod? We call rod 2 current-reference probe C and rod 3, potential-
reference probe P (simply for convenience in identification). The correct
resistance is usually obtained if P (rod 3) is placed at a distance from the
center of the earth electrode (rod 1) about 62 percent of the distance
between the earth electrode and C (rod 2).
Fig. 5: Principle of an earth resistance test 4 Actually, current can exist in other paths between the two fixed electrodes, so that rod 3
could be (and might have to be) located at other than along a straight line.

For example, in Fig. 5b, the distance D from the earth electrode to C is There are three basic test methods as noted below. The first two are
100 ft. Taking 62 percent of this distance, we get 62 ft. From Fig. 5b, the shown schematically in Figs. 6 and 7.
resistance for this distance is 20 Ω. This is the measured resistance of the
1. Fall-of-potential method, or three-terminal test.
earth electrode.
2. Dead Earth method (two-point test).
This rule works well for simple electrodes, such as a driven rod. It also
works for a small group of rods. But you must know the true electrical 3. Clamp-on test method (see Appendix II).
center of the electrode system fairly accurately. Also, accuracy of readings
is better if the earth resistivity between the three electrodes is reasonably
constant. Finally, C should be far enough away from the earth electrode
system so that the 62 percent distance is out of the “sphere of influence”
of the earth electrode. (See discussion with reference to Figs. 8 and 9).
For the test, the electrode should be isolated from the electrical system
that it is protecting; otherwise, the whole system is tested which
(depending on local practices) may include the pole ground, system
neutral, and transformer ground. This obscures the specific effect of the
local ground.
Basically, you now have the principle of earth resistance testing. The rest
is refinement -- in test methods, use of electrodes or electrode systems, Fig. 6: Fall-of-potential or three-terminal earth resistance test
and information about earth resistivity, as covered in later portions of this
manual.
Basic Test Methods for Earth Resistance
The earth tester generates an a.c. signal which is fed into the system
under test. The instrument then checks the status of the circuits for good
connection and noise. If either of these variables is out of specification
then the operator is informed. Having checked that the conditions for
test are met, the instrument automatically steps through its measurement
ranges to find the optimum signal to apply. Measuring the current
flowing and the voltage generated the instrument calculates and displays
the system resistance in the range of 0.001 to 20,000 ohms, depending
on the model chosen.
Fig. 7: Dead earth method or two-point earth resistance test

In addition, Megger has developed a version of Fall-of-Potential testing The added accuracy may prove significant when meeting very low
where the operator does not have to disconnect the ground rod under resistance specifications or using test methods that necessitate an extra
test from the electrical system. The ART (Attached Rod Technique) will be digit of measurement in order to meet the mathematical requirements.
covered in Appendix III. The decision is optional, based on the operator’s testing goals and the
method used. The driven reference rod C should be placed as far from
Fall-of-Potential Method: This three-terminal test is the method
the earth electrode as practical; this distance may be limited by the length
described previously with reference to Fig. 5. With a four-terminal tester,
of extension wire available, or the geography of the surroundings (see
P1 and C1 terminals on the instrument are jumpered and connected to
Fig. 6). Leads should be separated and “snaked,” not run close and
the earth electrode under test. With a three-terminal instrument, connect
parallel to each other, to eliminate mutual inductance.
X to the earth electrode.
Potential-reference rod P is then driven in at a number of points roughly
Although four terminals are necessary for resistivity measurements, the
on a straight line between the earth electrode and C. Resistance readings
use of either three of four terminals is largely optional for testing the
are logged for each of the points. A curve of resistance vs. distance, like
resistance of an installed electrode. The use of three terminals is more
Fig. 5b, is then drawn. Correct earth resistance is read from the curve for
convenient because it requires one lead to be connected. The trade-off is
the distance that is about 62 percent of the total distance from the earth
that the resistance of this common lead is included in the measurement.
electrode to C. In other words, if the total distance is D, the 62 percent
Normally, this effect can be
distance is 0.62D; for example, if D is 120 ft, the distance value for earth
minimized by keeping the
resistance is 0.62 x 120 or 74 ft.
lead short, to accommodate
simple test requirements. The There are three basic types of the Fall-of-Potential test methods and a
small additional resistance number of related test methods that will be described in the appendices.
thus introduced is negligible. The types of Fall-of-Potential are:
When performing more
I Full Fall-of-Potential — a number of tests are made at different spaces
complex tests or meeting
of P and the resistance curve is plotted.
stringent requirements,
however, it may be better to I Simplified Fall-of-Potential — three measurements are made at defined
use all four terminals by a distances of P and mathematical calculations are used to determine the
lead from the P1 terminal to resistance (to be described in more detail later).
the test electrode I 61.8% Rule — a single measurement is made with P at a distance
(connecting it inside the lead 61.8% (62%) of the distance between the electrode under test and C.
from C1). This is a true four-
The related test methods tend to be more complex and sophisticated
wire test configuration which
requiring many measurements and/or a great deal of math. These
eliminates all lead resistance
methods have been developed to help overcome the problems faced
from the measurement.
Typical use of a Megger digital ground resistance when testing large ground systems or when there is limited space. A list
tester to perform fall-of-potential testing of these methods follows:

I Intersecting curves method (Appendix IV) Effects of Different Reference Probe Locations
I Slope method (Appendix V) Now, you may ask: if the right location for probe P is always 62 percent
of the distance between the earth electrode and C, why bother with all
I Four-potential method (Appendix VI)
the tests at other locations for P? Why not just drive P in at the 62
I Star delta method (Appendix VII) percent distance and assume that the measured resistance is the correct
Dead Earth Method: When using a four-terminal instrument, P1 and C1 earth resistance? The following should help answer these questions.
terminals connect to the earth electrode under test; P2 and C2 terminals Minimum Distance for C: Consider Fig. 8 which shows earth shells
connect to an all-metallic water-pipe system. With a three-terminal around the earth electrode and reference probe C. In Fig. 8a, C is so
instrument, connect X to the earth electrode, P and C to the pipe system close to the earth electrode that the earth shells seriously overlap. Then
(Fig. 7). If the water system is extensive (covering a large area), its you don’t get the leveling off of measured resistance as P is moved away
resistance should only be a fraction of an ohm. You can then take the from the earth electrode; the shells of C add to the shells of the earth
instrument reading as being the resistance of the electrode under test. electrode so the resistance keeps increasing.
The dead earth method is the simplest way to make an earth resistance
test. With this method, resistance of two electrodes in series is measured
— the driven rod and the water system. But there are three important
limitations:
1. The waterpipe system must be extensive enough to have a negligible
resistance.
2. The waterpipe system must be metallic throughout, without any
insulating couplings or flanges.
3. The earth electrode under test must be far enough away from the
water-pipe system to be outside its sphere of influence.
In some locations, your earth electrode may be so close to the water-pipe
system that you cannot separate the two by the required distance for
measurement by the two-terminal method. Under these circumstances, if
conditions 1 and 2 above are met, you can connect to the water-pipe
system and obtain a suitable earth electrode. As a precaution against any
possible future changes in the resistance of the water-pipe system,
however, you should also install an earth electrode.
Due to the many uncertainties associated with this method of testing, it
should be considered using as a “last resort.” Fig. 8: Effect of C location on the earth resistance curve

In Fig. 8b, C is placed farther away. Then the measured resistance levels electrode; Curve B shows the desired tendency toward leveling out of the
off enough and at the 62 percent distance it is very close to the actual measured resistance. The 62 percent distance gives resistance values
earth resistance. The reason for having C farther away is to get assurance nearly the same in this case since the earth resistivity is fairly uniform.
that the 62 percent value is “in line” with other values on the curve. The
Simplified Fall-of-Potential Test: The preferred test method is to always
value could only be wrong (assuming there are no measuring mistakes) if
gather sufficient data to plot the actual curve of resistance vs. distance. In
the soil conditions at the 62 percent point vary from conditions at other
the event that this is impossible, a simplified test might be used with a
points, causing changes in earth resistivity. Graded soil around
compromise on accuracy. This procedure is similar to that outlined under
construction sites or buried objects such as pipes can cause such localized
Fall-of-Potential Method as described in IEEE Standard No. 81 (see
deviations. Therefore, you want to get some degree of flatness or leveling
references), but you start with P midway between the earth electrode
off of your curve to make such a variation easily noticeable. At the same
and C.
time, remember that the resistance will rise again in the electrical field of
the current probe, so measurements in this area are to be avoided. This reading with P at 50 percent of the distance from the earth electrode
to C is noted as R1. Reference probe P is then moved to a location 40
As a practical example of this effect, consider the case illustrated in Fig.
percent of the distance to C. The reading at this point is noted as R2. A
9. This shows two earth resistance curves for two locations of C. Curve A
third reading, R3, is made with P at a 60 percent distance. The average of
was obtained when C was 100 ft from the earth electrode; Curve B when
R1, R2 and R3 is calculated as RA. You determine the maximum deviation
C was 700 ft away. Curve A shows that C was too close to the earth
from the average by finding the greatest difference between individual
readings and the average. If 1.2 times this percentage is less than your
desired test accuracy, RA can be used as the test result. As an example of
this technique, use the data from curve B in Fig. 9 as follows:
R1 = 58 Ω R2 = 55 Ω R3 = 59 Ω
RA = 55 + 58 + 59 = 57.3 Ω
3
RA - R2 = 57.3 - 55 = 4.0%
RA 57.3
4.0% x 1.2 = 4.8%

If your desired accuracy was 5 percent, 57 Ω (RA) could be used as the
result. If the result is not within the required accuracy, probe C has to be
placed farther away and the tests repeated. This method can give
sufficient accuracy but will always give values on the low side. (See
discussion following with reference to Table I.)
Fig. 9: Example of how C location affects the earth resistance curve

Some Rules of Thumb on Spacing P and C: For testing a single earth distance for complex electrode systems that consist of a large number of
electrode, C can usually be placed 50 ft from the electrode under test, rods or plates and other metallic structures, all bonded together. For an
with P placed about 31 ft away. With a small grid of two earth earth electrode system covering a large area, refer to Appendix II and III
electrodes, C can usually be placed about 100 to 125 ft from the for additional techniques.
electrode under test; P correspondingly can be placed about 62 to 78 ft
Table I is a useful guide to reference probe location. You find the
away. If the earth electrode system is large, consisting of several rods or
“Maximum Dimension” figure by taking the diagonal distance across
plates in parallel, for example, the distance for C must be increased to
your electrode system area. For example, if the area measures 100 by 100
possibly 200 ft, and for P to some 125 ft. You’ll need even greater
ft, the diagonal equals about 140 ft. From the table, you run down the
Table I: Guide to approximate location of reference probes first column to 140 and read across. P should be 365 ft from the
(see Note 1) electrode and C should be 590 ft.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lazy Spikes
Max Dimension, Ft. Distance to Distance to
The latest designs of digital earth testers can operate with very high
(see Note 2) P, Ft. C, Ft.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
temporary spike resistances and still give reliable and accurate results.
2 40 70 Because the current and voltage are measured separately, it enables
4 60 100 electrode measurements to be carried out with test spike resistances up
6 80 125 to 400 kΩ.
8 90 140
10 100 160 The advantage of these instruments tolerating such high spike resistance
12 105 170 is generally that tests can be performed quickly on a green field site
14 120 190 because electrodes do not have to be inserted too far into the ground.
16 125 200 However, in urban situations, tests can be carried out using street
18 130 210 furniture such as sign posts, metal fences and bollards. Where this is not
20 140 220 possible, results have been obtained by laying the temporary electrodes
40 200 320 on a wet patch of concrete. Coiled metal chains or metallized ground
60 240 390
mats, with water poured over them, make an even better electrode
80 280 450
because they conform more intimately to the earth’s surface than does a
100 310 500
120 340 550 rigid spike. This technique has led to measured values of “spike” of less
140 365 590 than 10 kΩ, well inside the maximum value that will cause an error to
160 400 640 the reading.
180 420 680
With modern instruments, any problem with the temporary spikes will be
200 440 710
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ indicated on the display to show that a reading may not be valid. A more
Note 1: Based upon data in Reference 2. suitable position for the spike may have to be used such as along the gap
Note 2: For example, the diagonal across an area surrounded
by an earthed fence.

between paving stones, a crack in concrete, or in a nearby puddle. As transformer and its winding. If any of these elements have too high a
long as warning indicators do not appear, sufficient contact has been resistance, protective devices may be inhibited from operating properly,
made and a reliable test may be performed. even though the ground electrode itself is maintained at a sufficiently low
resistance.
Supplementary Tests
There are related tests which can be performed to supplement the How to Improve Earth Resistance
information gained from the ground test and to augment the protection When you find that your earth electrode resistance is not low enough,
provided by the ground electrode. One of these is a continuity test to there are several ways you can improve it:
assure that it is complete and adequate throughout the grounding I Lengthen the earth electrode in the earth.
conductors and down to the point of contact with the electrode. Either a
I Use multiple rods.
three-terminal or four-terminal tester can be used in a two-terminal
configuration by shunting together the appropriate pairs. The two leads I Treat the soil.
can thus be connected across a bond, weld, joint, or length of conductor, Effect of Rod Size: As you might suspect, driving a longer rod deeper
and the resistance measured. An earth tester, however, provides only a into the earth, materially decreases its resistance. In general, doubling the
convenient backup check, not a fully rigorous continuity test. The reason rod length reduces resistance by about 40 percent. The curve of Fig.10
for this is that, for safety’s sake, the test current is limited to values below shows this effect. For example, note that a rod driven 2 ft down has a
a level harmful to the human body. A fully rigorous proof of a bond,
however, must stress the connection at current levels capable of revealing
corrosion, cracks, loose connections, and the like. For this reason, a
dedicated low resistance ohmmeter capable of 10 A or more of test
current is preferred.
To protect personnel about to perform a ground test, as well as to
identify the presence of electrical problems in the system, the ground
electrode can first be checked for the presence of fault current. It is not
uncommon, in an unbalanced or faulted electrical system, for the
electrode to be carrying a fault current, more or less constantly, to
ground. This may be only a few milliamps or several amps, and occurring
undetected. A sufficiently sensitive clamp-on milliammeter can reveal the
problem, and protect the testing crew from possible shock, in just a few
seconds.
The total impedance of the system can be measured at once by using a
loop tester. This instrument simulates a fault between a phase conductor
and ground, and thereby measures the total impedance of the entire
Fig. 10: Earth resistance decreases with depth of electrode in earth (Source: Ref 19)
ground loop, including conductors and the earth return path back to the

resistance of 88 Ω; the same rod driven 4 ft down has a resistance of Fig. 12: Average results obtained from
about 50 Ω. Using the 40 percent reduction rule, 88 x 0.4 = 35 Ω multiple-rod earth electrodes5
reduction. By this calculation, a 4-ft deep rod would have a resistance of
88 - 35 or 53 Ω — comparing closely with the curve values.
You might also think that increasing the electrode diameter would lower
the resistance. It does, but only a little. For the same depth, doubling the
rod’s diameter reduces the resistance only about 10 percent. Fig. 11
shows this relationship. For example, a 10-ft deep rod, 5/8 in. in
diameter, has a resistance of 6.33 Ω; increasing its diameter to 1-1/4 in.
lowers the resistance o to 5.6 Ω. For this reason, you normally only
consider increasing the rod diameter if you have to drive it into hard
terrain.
Fig. 13: Comparative resistance

Fig. 11: Diameter of a rod has little effect on its earth resistance of multiple-rod earth electrodes.
Single rod equals 100%6
Curve A, from Ref. 19
Curve B, average of Underwriters Laboratories tests at Chicago
Curve C, average of Underwriters Laboratories tests at Pittsburgh
Use of Multiple Rods: Two well-spaced rods driven into the earth
provide parallel paths. They are, in effect, two resistances in parallel. The
rule for two resistances in parallel does not apply exactly; that is, the
resultant resistance is not one-half the individual rod resistances
(assuming they are of the same size and depth). Actually, the reduction
for two equal resistance rods is about 40 percent. If three rods are used,
the reduction is 60 percent; if four, 66 percent (see Fig. 12).
5, 6 Source: Reference 20

When you use multiple rods, they must be spaced apart further than the
length of their immersion. There are theoretical reasons for this, but you
need only refer to curves such as Fig. 13. For example, if you have two
rods in parallel and 10-ft spacing, resistance is lowered about 40 percent.
If the spacing is increased to 20 percent, reduction is about 50 percent.
Treatment of the Soil: Chemical treatment of soil is a good way to
improve earth electrode resistance when you cannot drive deeper ground
rods because of hard underlying rock, for example. It is beyond the scope
of this manual to recommend the best treatment chemicals for all
situations. You have to consider the possible corrosive effect on the
electrode as well as EPA and local environmental regulations. Magnesium
sulfate, copper sulfate, and ordinary rock salt are suitable non-corrosive
materials. Magnesium sulfate is the least corrosive, but rock salt is
cheaper and does the job if applied in a trench dug around the electrode
(see Fig. 14). It should be noted that soluble sulfates attack concrete, and
Fig. 14: Trench method of soil treatment 7
should be kept away from building foundations. Another popular
approach is to backfill around the electrode with a specialized conductive
concrete. A number of these products, like bentonite, are available on the
market.
Chemical treatment is not a permanent way to improve your earth
electrode resistance. The chemicals are gradually washed away by rainfall
and natural drainage through the soil. Depending upon the porosity of
the soil and the amount of rainfall, the period for replacement varies. It
may be several years before another treatment is required.
Chemical treatment also has the advantage of reducing the seasonable
variation on resistance that results from periodical wetting and drying out
of the soil. (See curves of Fig. 15.) However, you should only consider this
method when deep or multiple electrodes are not practical.
See Appendix 1 which describes the use of a nomograph relating length
of rod, diameter of rod, and earth resistivity to earth resistance. Fig. 15: Chemical treatment of soil lessens seasonal variation of electrodes’
earth resistance 8
7, 8 Source: Reference 20

SECTION II
Earth Resistivity
As we’ve seen in Section I, the term “earth resistivity” expressed in ohm-
centimeters (abbreviated ohm-cm), is one basic variable affecting
resistance to earth of an electrode system. But you found that the actual
value of earth resistivity need not be measured to check the electrode
earth resistance. Now we’ll consider other fields where the value of
resistivity is measured; also some of the factors affecting it that are of
interest in earth testing.
Earth resistivity measurements can be used conveniently for geophysical Fig. 16: Four-terminal method of measuring earth resistivity
prospecting — to locate ore bodies, clays, and water-bearing gravel
beneath the earth’s surface. The measurement can also be used to
determine depth to bed rock and thickness of glacial drift. Dr. Frank Wenner of the U.S. Bureau of Standards (now NIST) developed
the theory behind this test in 1915 (see reference 10). He showed that, if
Measurements of earth resistivity are useful also for finding the best the electrode depth (B) is kept small compared to the distance between
location and depth for low resistance electrodes. Such studies are made, the electrodes (A)9, the following formula applies:
for example, when a new electrical unit is being constructed; a
generating station, substation, transmission tower, or telephone central ρ = 2π AR
office. where ρ is the average soil resistivity to depth A in ohm-cm, π is the
Finally, earth resistivity may be used to indicate the degree of corrosion to constant 3.1416, A is the distance between the electrodes in cm, and R
be expected in underground pipelines for water, oil, gas, gasoline, etc. In is the Megger earth tester reading in ohms.
general, spots where the resistivity values are low tend to increase In other words, if the distance A between the electrodes is 4 ft, you
corrosion. This same kind of information is a good guide for installing obtain the average earth resistivity to a depth of 4 ft as follows:
cathodic protection.
1. Convert the 4 ft to centimeters to obtain A in the formula:
How Earth Resistivity is Measured 4 x 12 x 2.54 cm = 122 cm
A four-terminal instrument is used to measure earth resistivity. Now,
2. Multiply 2 π A to obtain a constant for a given test setup:
however, you use four small-sized electrodes driven down to the same
2 x 3.14 x 122 = 766
depth and equal distances apart in a straight line (Fig. 16). Four separate
lead wires connect the electrodes to the four terminals on the instrument, Now, for example, if your instrument reading is 60 Ω, the earth resistivity
as shown. Hence, the name of this test: the four-terminal method. would be 60 x 766, or 45,960 ohm-cm.
9 B = 1/20A is generally recommended

Practical Example of Test Method10 Type of Soil Affects Resistivity
A petroleum company had a 10-in. pipeline 6300 ft long running Whether a soil is largely clay or very sandy, for example, can change the
through rugged terrain. After a corrosion leak, they wanted to check out earth resistivity a great deal. It isn’t easy to define exactly a given soil;
earth resistivity along the line. Low-resistance spots would most likely “clay” can cover a wide variety of soils. Therefore, we cannot say that
require attention. They used a Megger earth tester to make a survey any given soil has a resistivity of so many ohm-cm. Tables II and III are
along the line. taken from two different reference books and show the wide range in
values. Note also the spread of values for the same general types of soil.
First, average depth of the pipeline was found from a profile map. It was See Fig. 18 also.
4 ft, so four electrodes were tied together 4 ft apart with strong cotton
cord. They decided to check soil resistivity every 20 ft along the line. Fig.
17 shows a portion of the results; pit depth corrosion and Megger earth
tester readings are plotted for points along the pipeline. Note that for
low resistance readings, more corrosion was found.
Fig. 18: Deeper earth electrodes lower the resistance. These graphs show the
relation between character of soil and resistance of driven electrode at increased
depths.
Table II: Resistivities of Different Soils*
Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
Soil Avg Min Max
Fig. 17: Earth resistivity survey of pipeline shows where corrosion is most
likely to occur (source: Ref. 18) Fills: ashes, cinders, brine wastes 2,370 590 7,000
Clay: shale, gumbo, loam 4,060 340 16,300
Same: varying proportions of sand/gravel 15,800 1,020 135,000
Gravel, sand, stones with little clay/loam 94,000 59,000 458,000
10 Reference 18 *US Bureau of Standards Report 108

Resistivity Decreases with Moisture and Dissolved Salts Table IV: Effect of Moisture Content on Earth Resistivity*
In soil, conduction of current is largely electrolytic. Therefore, the amount Moisture Content, Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
of moisture and salt content of soil radically affects its resistivity. The Percent by Weight Top Soil Sandy Loam
amount of water in the soil varies, of course, with the weather, time of 0.0 1,000 x 10 6 1,000 x 106
year, nature of sub-soil, and depth of the permanent water table. Table IV
2.5 250,000 150,000
shows typical effects of water in soil; note that when dry, the two types
of soil are good insulators (resistivities greater than 1000 x 106 ohm-cm). 5.0 165,000 43,000
With a moisture content of 15 percent, however, note the dramatic 10.0 53,000 22,000
decrease in resistivity (by a factor of 100,000). Actually, pure water has an 15.0 21,000 13,000
infinitely high resistivity. Naturally occurring salts in the earth, dissolved in 20.0 12,000 10,000
water, lower the resistivity. Only a small amount of salt11 can reduce
30.0 10,000 8,000
earth resistivity quite a bit. (See Table V.) As noted in Section I, this effect
can be useful to provide a good low-resistance electrode, in place of an *From “An Investigation of Earthing Resistance” by P.J. Higgs,
expensive, elaborate electrode system. I.E.E. Journal, vol. 68, p. 736, February 1930
Table III: Resistivities of Different Soils* Table V: Effects of Salt Content on Earth Resistivity*
Resistivity
Added Salt
Soil Ohm-cm (Range)
Percent by Weight of Moisture Resistivity, (Ohm-cm)
Surface soils, loam, etc. 100 - 5,000 0.0 10,700
Clay 200 - 10,000 0.1 1,800
Sand and gravel 5,000 - 100,000 1.0 460
Surface limestone 10,000 - 1,000,000 5.0 190
Shales 500 - 10,000 10.0 130
Sandstone 2,000 - 200,000 20.0 100
Granites, basalts, etc. 100,000 *For sandy loam; moisture content, 15% by weight; temperature 63º F (17º C)
Decomposed gneisses 5,000 - 50,000
Slates, etc. 1,000 - 10,000
*Evershed & Vignoles Bulletin 245
11 By “salt” we don’t mean the kind used to season food (sodium chloride), though this kind
can occur in soil. Other kinds include copper sulfate, sodium carbonate, and others (see
“Treatment of Soil,” Section I).

Effect of Temperature on Earth Resistivity As covered in Section I, the other main reason for measuring earth
Not much information has been collected on the effects of temperature. resistivity is to design earth-electrode systems for electrical power
Two facts lead to the logical conclusion that an increase in temperature systems, lightning arresters, and so on. The measured resistivity values are
will decrease resistivity: (1) water present in soil mostly determines the used in standard engineering formulas that calculate factors like number
resistivity, and (2) an increase in temperature markedly decreases the and depth of rods necessary to achieve a required ground resistance, thus
resistivity of water. The results shown in Table VI confirm this. Note that reducing the amount of trial and error in the installation of an effective
when water in the soil freezes, the resistivity jumps appreciably; ice has a ground. Earth resistance varies directly with earth resistivity and it is
high resistivity. The resistivity continues to increase an temperatures go helpful to know what factors affect resistivity.
below freezing. The curves of Fig. 19 illustrate several worthwhile points. They show the
Table VI: Effect of Temperature on Earth Resistivity* expected change in earth resistance (due to resistivity changes) over a
1-1/2 year period; they also show that the deeper electrode gives a more
Temperature
stable and lower value. We conclude that the moisture content and
C F Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
temperature of the soil become more stable at greater distances below
20 68 7,200
the earth’s surface. Therefore, the earth electrode should reach a deep
10 50 9,900 enough level to provide:
0 32 (water) 13,800
I Permanent moisture content (relatively speaking).
0 32 (ice) 30,000
-5 23 79,000 I Constant temperature (below frost line; again, relatively speaking).
-15 14 330,000
*For sandy loam; 15.2% moisture
Seasonal Variations in Earth Resistivity

We have seen the effects of temperature, moisture, and salt content
upon earth resistivity. It makes sense, therefore, that the resistivity of soil
will vary considerably at different times of year. This is particularly true in
locations where there are more extremes of temperature, rainfall, dry
spells, and other seasonal variations.
From the preceding discussion, you can see that earth resistivity is a very
variable quantity. If you want to know what the value is at a given
location, at a given time of year, the only safe way is to measure it. When
you use this value for survey work, the change in the value, caused by Fig. 19: Seasonal variation of earth resistance with an electrode of 3/4” pipe in
changes in the nature of the sub-soil, is the important thing; from the stony clay soil. Depth of electrode in earth is 3 ft for Curve 1 and 10 ft for Curve 2
(source: Ref. 9)
variations in resistivity you can obtain useful survey results.

Determining a Good Electrode Location the process until the whole chosen area has been covered. The location
A good, low-resistance earth electrode depends upon a low-resistivity soil giving the lowest value for R has the lowest specific resistance for the soil
in a spot where you can drive in your electrodes. There are two to the chosen depth of 10 ft. The spot is likely to give you the best earth
approaches to picking your location: electrode.
1. Drive rods in various locations to such depths as may be required and If you want results affected by the average earth resistivity to a depth of
test their resistances while they are being driven. 20 ft, repeat the survey on lines 20 ft apart and with stakes spaced 20 ft
apart. Such surveys do not require much time and can pay off in
2. Measure the earth resistivity before driving ground rods. Then ensuring a good grounding system.
calculate the number and length of rods required.
Alternate Method: Another way is to drive rods or pipes in various
To get a low-resistance electrode in an unfavorable location, lay out locations to such depths as may prove practicable, testing their resistance
straight lines 10 ft apart, covering the area. Drive four stakes 10 ft apart, while they are being driven. In this manner, you can usually tell at once
but not more than 6 in. deep, along a line a-b-d-c, as shown in Fig. 20. when moisture or other good conducting earth is reached. However, the
Measure the resistance R between stakes b and c, using the method work involved is apt to be much more than with the first method.
described for earth resistivity. Then, shift the stakes along the line in
question to points b-c-d-e, c-d-e-f, and so on (see Fig. 20) and test until
the entire line has been covered. Next, move to the next line and repeat
Fig. 20: Method of prospecting for best earth electrode location to a depth a.
With Megger ground resistance testers’ high resistance
Location giving lowest reading on the Megger ground tester is the most desirable.
test circuits, testing can be performed on a paved surface

SECTION III After installation it is vital to check that the electrical grounding system
Accurately Measuring Earth meets the design criteria and should be measured periodically to ensure
Resistance for Large Ground Systems corrosion or changes in the soil's resistivity do not have an adverse effect.
Large ground systems, such as those found in substations and power Ground networks may not appear faulty until a fault occurs and a
stations, are an important part of the protection of the electricity supply dangerous situation arises.
network. They ensure that fault current will enable protective devices to
To obtain a sufficiently low value of ground resistance, ground systems
operate correctly. A substation must have a low ground resistance to
may consist of an earth mat covering a large area or many
reduce excessive voltages developing during a fault which could
interconnected rods. Suitable test techniques must be used for large
endanger safety of nearby people or damage equipment.
systems to ensure that valid readings are obtained. This is unlike a small
When installing a ground system the resistivity of the surrounding soil single ground rod (for example, a lightning protection system or
should be measured. Inaccurate resistivity tests can lead to unnecessary residential ground) which can be simple to test.
costs in the design of the system.
Testing Challenges in Large Ground Systems
Securing valid measurements when testing large ground systems requires
that proper techniques and instrumentation be used. The nature of
substation and power station grounding systems and related conditions
make testing far more complex than on a simple ground rod. Following
are the three key challenges in testing substation ground systems:
1. The physically large area of a substation/power station ground system
results in a large “resistance area” and, consequently, long distances to
the test probes; ideally, the current test probe should be placed 10
times the maximum distance on the ground system (e.g., 3000 ft for a
300 ft2 ground grid) to find the “flat” portion of the characteristic
resistance curve.
2. The large “resistance area” typically gives ground resistance values of
less than 0.5 Ω; test instrument resolution is critical if small variances in
readings are to be observed; if the test instrument does not have
suitable resolution, instrument errors can overwhelm the results.
Checking the earth resistance of a ground system at a substation using

a Megger ground tester, Cat. No. 250260

3. Large electrical networks contain noise consisting of the frequency of For the Slope Method to provide meaningful results, accurate
the power utility and its harmonics, plus high frequency noise from measurement of the variations at different points is critical. Since large
switching, etc., and induced signals from other sources; the ground ground systems typically have resistance values of less than 0.5 Ω, the
tester must retrieve and analyze a small test signal in a much larger differences can be quite small. An instrument with 1 mΩ measurement
test environment; most ground testers only inject a single frequency resolution can indicate the small differences between low readings.
(usually 128 Hz) which is adequate in most situations because it avoids
Noise is a major problem in testing large ground systems, and must be
harmonics of standard line frequencies; unfortunately, it is often not
addressed to ensure accurate results. To be effective, the test instrument
adequate in substations; this type of interference can cause significant
must be designed to overcome the effects of significant noise in the test
measurement errors.
environment. Among the technical capabilities that can help offset the
Addressing the Testing Challenges in Large Ground Systems noise problem are:
In the ideal world, testing a large ground system would be conducted in I A variable test frequency (rather than a single, fixed test frequency)
complete accordance with the Fall-of Potential Method. Unfortunately, which can help remove any stray noise that could affect the reading.
the large “resistance areas” found in large ground systems may make it
I A high peak-to-peak interference suppression level.
unfeasible or even impossible to carry out this test. As noted above,
setting the current test probe 10 times the maximum distance of the I A sophisticated filter system to reject more noise.
ground system can require leads to be many thousands of feet. In these I Various current settings to improve the signal-to-noise ratio when
situations, the Slope Method can be used effectively because it does not necessary.
require the user to find the “flat” portion of the curve or to know the
electrical center as a point from which to measure. Readings are taken at
20 percent, 40 percent and 60 percent of the current probe distance and
fit into a mathematical model of the resistance characteristic. Appendix III
provides a detailed explanation of the Slope Method, including relevant
tables.
The other challenges faced in testing large ground systems relate to the
capabilities of the test instrument. Improved technology has made it
possible for instruments to be designed that address problems created by
the characteristics and conditions found in and around large ground
systems.

APPENDIX I Another way to reduce the earth resistance would be to lower the earth
Nomograph Guide to Getting Acceptable Earth Resistance12 resistivity. Note in Fig. 21 that if you draw a line from a reference point 1
Dr. L.E. Whitehead of the DuPage Laboratories developed a nomograph (leaving rod depth and diameter unchanged), you would need to reduce
(Fig. 21) which can be a helpful guide in meeting the established earth resistivity to about 1000 ohm-cm to give the required 4-Ω earth
standard for a minimum earth resistance. If you have a given earth- resistance. You could do this by chemical treatment, as described earlier,
electrode system and find that your Megger instrument reading is too but normally the deeper rod is the easier way.
high, the graph can be used to show what you must do to lower the
value. Note that it covers three variable conditions that affect earth
resistance of the electrode: earth resistivity, length of rod, and diameter
of rod.
(See text in Appendix I.)

Fig. 21: Nomograph relating the basic factors affecting earth resistance.
To illustrate use of the nomograph, let’s take an example. Assume you
have a 5⁄8in. rod driven 10 ft into the soil. Your Megger instrument
indicates an earth resistance of 6.6 Ω. But let’s say your specification for
this resistance is “no more than 4 Ω.” To get this, you can change one or
more of the three variables -- the simplest and most effective being depth
of the driven rod. To find the required depth to give you a 4 Ω earth
resistance, proceed as follows: With a ruler, draw a line from the 10ft
point in the L line to the 5⁄8in. point in the d line; this gives a reference
point where the line crosses the q line. Connect this reference point with
6.6 Ω-the measured resistance on the R line, as shown in Fig. 21; read
the value of earth resistivity when this line crosses the p line. The value is
2000 ohm-cm.
To determine the required rod depth for a 4 Ω earth resistance, draw a
line from this point on the R line through the 2000 point on the p line
until you cross the q line. The dashed line on Fig. 21 shows this step.
Now, assuming you keep rod diameter unchanged, connect the 5⁄8 point
on d line through your new reference point on q and extend the line to L.
This gives you the required rod depth for the 4 Ω resistance value. Finally,
take a new instrument reading to check the value, because earth
resistivity may not be constant (as the nomograph assumes).
12 Reference 21

APPENDIX II
Clamp-On Method
Fall-of-potential testing, and its modifications, is the only ground testing
method that conforms to IEEE 81. It is extremely reliable, highly accurate
and can be used to test any size ground system. Additionally, the
operator has complete control of the test set-up and can check or proof
his/her results by testing at different probe spacings. Unfortunately, the
Fall of Potential method also comes with several drawbacks:
I It is extremely time consuming and labor intensive.
I Individual ground electrodes must be disconnected from the system to
be measured. Fig 22: Basic clamp-on ground testing methodology
The clamp-on ground testing method, although it does not conform to

signal is taking. All elements of the loop are measured in series. The
IEEE 81, does provide the operator with the ability to make effective
method assumes that only the resistance of the test ground contributes
measurements under the right conditions. The clamp-on methodology is
significantly.
based on Ohm’s Law (R=V/I). A known voltage is applied to a complete
circuit and the resulting current flow is measured. The resistance of the Figure 22 shows the basic methodology. The tester is clamped over RX.
circuit can then be calculated. The clamp-on ground tester applies the All test current travels through RX, but divides between the remaining
signal and measures the current resistances to return. Note that RX is assumed to be much, much greater
without a direct electrical than the remaining resistance. In a multiple ground system, the circuit
connection. The clamp includes a can be considered a loop consisting of the individual ground electrode, a
transmit coil that applies the return path via all other electrodes and the mass of earth. The single
voltage and a receive coil that electrode will have a higher resistance than the remainder of grounds
measures the current. connected in parallel.
For the clamp-on method to Figure 23 shows a practical example of where the clamp-on method is
work, there must be a complete highly effective. The application is an interconnected parallel ground, like
circuit already in place, as the a lighting string. The system neutral completes the return. The resistance
operator has no probes and, of the loop could be calculated by:
therefore, cannot set up the
Rloop = R6 + (1/(1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/R3 + 1/R4 + 1/R5))
desired test circuit. The operator
must be certain that earth is For six similar electrodes with a resistance of 10 Ω, the loop resistance
included in the return loop. The The Megger DET20C clamp-on ground measured when testing each electrode would be:
tester measures the complete tester is shown being used to test a utility
Rloop = 10Ω + 2Ω = 12Ω
resistance of the path (loop) the pole

For sixty similar electrodes with a resistance of 10Ω, the loop resistance There are several major advantages to the clamp-on method, but also a
measured when testing each electrode would be: number of disadvantages. It is important for the operator to understand
the limitations of the test method so that he/she does not misuse the
Rloop = 10Ω + 0.17Ω= 10.17Ω
instrument and get erroneous or misleading readings. A clamp-on tester
If one of six electrodes has a resistance of 100Ω, and the rest have a is an important tool in the bag of a test technician, but cannot be the
resistance of 10Ω, the loop resistance measured when testing the high only instrument used.
resistance electrode would be:
The primary advantage of the clamp-on method is that it is quick and
Rloop = 100Ω + 2Ω = 102Ω easy, as no probes have to be driven and the ground rod does not have
to be disconnected from the system. The clamp-on method also includes
The loop resistance measured when testing each of the five other
the bonding and overall connection resistance of the system, and can
electrodes would be:
measure the leakage current flowing through the system, information
Rloop = 10Ω + 2.4Ω = 12.4Ω that is not available from a fall-of-potential test. Fall-of-potential
The more returns, the smaller the contribution of extraneous elements to measures only the ground electrode, not the bonding of the system
the reading and, therefore, the greater the accuracy. Even a “bad” (high (leads must be shifted to make a bonding test). With the clamp-on
resistance) element among many low resistance returns is not enough to method, an “open” or high resistance bond will show up in the reading
defeat the measurement. But, if the returns are few, or all the elements because the clamp-on tester uses the grounding conductor as part of the
are “high,” the error is large. return.
The clamp-on method is only effective in situations with multiple grounds
in parallel. It cannot be used on isolated grounds, as there is no return
path, making it not applicable for installation checks or commissioning
new sites. In addition, it cannot be used if an alternate lower resistance
return exists not involving the soil, such as with cellular towers or
substations.
The operator must also be aware of the subtleties of the test method to
ensure accurate results and analysis. If another part of the ground system
is in the “resistance area” of the electrode under test, the result will be
lower than the true resistance of the electrode, which could lead to a
false sense of security. The test is carried out at a high frequency to
enable the transformers to be as small and practical as possible. The
downside is that this approach is less representative of a fault at power
frequency than the traditional ground testing frequency of 128 Hz.
Fig 23: Pole ground application

A good return path is required for more accurate readings. A poor return Figure 24 is an application where the clamp-on method is often misused.
path may give high readings. The connection must be on the correct part This example will help show why knowledge of the system is critical to
of the loop for the electrode under test, as a wrong connection can give making the correct test. The illustration shows the problems with trying to
a faulty reading. The operator must have a thorough understanding of use a clamp-on ground tester on a cellular tower. Cellular towers are
the system to know exactly what is being measured. The method is grounded at the base, with each guy wire grounded and all of them
susceptible to noise from nearby electrical apparatus and is less effective connected together in a ring of grounds. If the operator clamps around the
for very “low” grounds (extraneous elements in the reading become head of one of the guy wire grounds, the test current will simply complete
comparatively large). the circuit in the ground ring and not through the soil. Note that the test
current circulates through the conductor that connects the individual
A final disadvantage of the clamp-on ground tester is that there is no
elements (ground rods) that comprise the ring. As such, the clamp-on
built-in proof for the method. With fall-of-potential testing, the operator
ground tester will not be measuring the quality of the ground system. The
can check the results by increasing the probe spacings. With the clamp-
reading will actually be a reading of the resistance of the “loop.”
on method, the results must be accepted on “faith.”
As noted previously, a clamp-on ground tester should not be the only test
instrument used. It is, however, an important part of the ground testing
tool kit, along with a fall-of-potential tester. The clamp-on tester can be
used to identify problems quickly. A fall-of-potential tester can then be
used confirm those problem results. This approach allows the operator to
save time but improves accuracy.
Fig 24: Cellular tower — example of a misused application

APPENDIX III The first step is to measure the resistance (RT) of the entire system using
Attached Rod Technique (ART) a typical fall-of-potential configuration. In this example, the reading for
Fall-of-potential testing is extremely reliable, highly accurate, conforms to RT is 1.9 Ω.
IEEE 81 and gives the operator complete control over the set-up. Step two involves measuring the total current (IT) being injected into the
Unfortunately, it is exceedingly time consuming and labor intensive, and system from C1. For this example, IT is 9.00 mA. The next step is to
requires that the individual ground electrodes be disconnected from the measure the amount of current (IU) flowing to the service. In this case, IU
system. is 5.00 mA. With these measurements, the voltage drop from the
As described in Appendix II, the clamp-on testing is quick and easy, but selected volume of soil to the point of the P2 can be determined as
has many limitations. It requires a good return path, is susceptible to follows:
noise, has reduced accuracies and cannot be used on isolated grounds. It V = IT x RT
is not applicable for installation checks or commissioning new sites and
has no built in proof. V = 0.009 A x 1.9 Ω
The Attached Rod Technique (ART) method of testing provides some of V = 0.017 V
the advantages of clamp-on testing (not having to disconnect the ground The current through the ground electrode (IG) can also be determined.
electrode) while remaining true to the theory and methodology of fall-of-
potential testing. To understand the method, it is necessary to understand IG = IT – IU
the theory and math behind it. In theory, a fall-of-potential measurement IG = 9.00 mA – 5.00 mA
could be made without disconnecting the ground electrode if additional
measurements were made with an earth leakage clamp meter (milliamp IG = 4.00 mA
meter). Figures 25 and 26 show the three measurements that would be
made.
Fig 26: Leakage current measurements

Fig 25: Ground resistance measurement

Using the voltage drop and the current through the ground electrode, the Ground testers that are designed to make ART measurements include a
resistance of the ground electrode (RG) can be determined. special built-in current clamp that is placed between the C1 connection
and the earth. This type of instrument includes noise protection and
RG = V ÷ IG
digitally filters out all currents other than that generated by the
RG = 0.017 V ÷ 0.004 A instrument. The instrument’s microprocessor automatically performs all
the calculations necessary to generate a resistance measurement for the
RG = 4.25 Ω
ground electrode.
As noted, this is a theoretical approach that requires perfect conditions.
The test is a fall-of-potential test, meaning that all the “rules” still apply.
Any additional current flowing from the service through the ground
Ideally, the operator would take ten measurements and plot the results to
electrode would reduce the accuracy of the measurement. The earth
determine true resistance. Proper probe spacing remains critical, and fall-
leakage clamp meter would have to filter out all but the current
of-potential procedure and methodology must be followed. As with a
generated by the instrument through C1 to ensure accuracy. Additionally,
traditional fall-of-potential test, the results can be proofed by increasing
this approach requires that a number of mathematical calculations be
the probe spacings.
made.
The advantage of the ART method over traditional fall-of-potential testing
The Attached Rod Technique is based on the theory outlined above.
is that the ground electrode under test does not have to be disconnected
Figure 27 shows an ART test being made.
from the system.
Using ART method with Megger DET3TC

to test commercial ground without
Fig 27: Attached Rod Technique (ART) measurement disconnecting the system

APPENDIX IV calculated and the resistance read off the curve. These resistances can be
Measurement of the Resistance of Large plotted against the values of X in another curve. When this process is
Earth-Electrode Systems: Intersecting Curves Method13 repeated for a different value of C, and another curve of resistance
The difficulties of measuring the resistance of large electrode systems against X obtained, the two curves should cross at the required
involve the use of very long leads to connect the potential and current resistance. The process can be repeated for a third value of C as a check.
probes. An alternative method, in which such long leads are not These curves are called intersection curves. It has been assumed that D, O
necessary, has been devised. The basic principle is to obtain earth- and C are in the same straight line.
resistance curves for several current-electrode spacings and, by assuming
Test at a Large Substation
a number of successive positions for the electrical center of the system, to
produce intersection curves which will give the earth resistance and the Tests were made at a station covering an area approximately 300 ft x 250
position of the electrical center. ft. The earthing system consists of a number of earth plates and rods
joined together by copper cables. The testing line was run out from a
Some rather difficult problems are encountered when the resistance of an point on the face approximately halfway along one side and the current
earth-electrode system, consisting of a number of rods, tapes, etc., all electrode was placed at distances of 400, 600, 800, and 1000 ft from the
connected in parallel and spread over a large area, is to be measured. starting point. The resulting earth-resistance curves are given in Fig. 29.
The usual method of measurement that worked very well has one The intersection curves are plotted and the final value of resistance is
disadvantage; namely, that it is generally necessary to place the auxiliary found in Fig. 30. It is reasonable to expect that this value is correct to
current probe at a considerable distance from the earth-electrode system. within a few percent.
In some cases, this distance can be as much as 3000 ft, and this is not
always convenient or possible.
A method which does not require such long lengths of cable would
obviously be better. Therefore, the following is suggested.
Suppose that all measurements are made from an arbitrary starting point
O, the distance C to the current probe and the variable distance P to the
potential probe being measured from this point. Then a curve such as abc
(Fig. 28), giving the measured resistance against the value of P, can be
obtained. Now suppose the electrical center of the earth-electrode system
is actually at D, distance X from O. Then the true distance from the
center to the current probe is C + X, and the true resistance is obtained
when the potential probe is at a distance 0.618 (C + X) from D. This
means that the value of P, measured from O, is 0.618 (C + X) - X. If X is
now given a number of values, the corresponding values of P can be
Fig. 28: Earth resistance curve applicable to systems of a large area

13 Reference 22

General Comments
It is the purpose of this method to reduce that distance to the current
probe, and this appears to have been achieved, but there are some
additional points to be noted. From the work which has been done on
the method, there are certain limits to the distance to the current probe.
To comply, if the earthing system is in the form of a square, the minimum
distance to the current probe should not be less than the side of the
square. On the other hand, the maximum distance should not be too
great. If it is, the resulting curve is very flat, and the intersection point
becomes rather indefinite. Again, for a square system, this maximum
distance should not exceed twice the side of the square. For other
shapes of earth-electrode systems, it is necessary to judge suitable
minimum and maximum values for the distance to the current probe.
Fig. 29: Earth resistance curves for a substation
Ground test being performed on building ground using a DET3TC

Fig. 30: Intersection curves for Fig. 29. The center of the triangle formed by the
intersection, Fig 30 gives the earth resistance 0.146 Ω

APPENDIX V The resultant is called µ and represents the change of slope of the
Measurement of The Resistance of Large resistance/distance curve.
Earth Electrode Systems: Slope Method14
6. Refer to Table VII to find the corresponding value of DP/DC for µ.
It has been shown that the true earth resistance of an electrode system is
obtained when the temporary potential P is positioned at a distance from 7. Since DC (distance to the current probe) is already known, calculate a
the electrical center of the system equal to 61.8 percent of the distance new DP (distance of the potential probe) as follows then insert the
from the electrical center to the temporary current probe. This principle is potential probe at this new distance from E.
used in the technique called “Intersecting Curves” explained in Appendix I. DP = DP/DC x DC
It becomes apparent that the method is complex in nature and requires
Now measure the earth resistance by placing the potential probe at this
some “trial and error” calculations.
new distance DP. This measurement is known as the “true” resistance.
A further technique was evolved and is described here. It is easier to use 8. Repeat the whole process for a larger value of DC. If the “true”
and has been shown to give satisfactory results, both in theoretical and resistance decreases appreciably as DC is increased, it is necessary to
practical cases, and when the soil is non-homogenous. It is called the increase the distance of DC still further. After making a number of tests
Slope Method. and plotting the “true” resistance, the curve will begin to show less of
To apply this technique, perform the following step procedure. a decrease and will indicate more stable readings. It is at this point the
resistance of the grounding system is noted.
1. Choose a convenience rod E to which the Earth Tester can be
connected. E is one of many paralleled rods forming the complex NOTE: As with other earth testing techniques, some experimentation may
earth system. be necessary to ascertain if the practical result is as accurate as the theory
appears to indicate.
2. Insert the current probe at a distance (DC) from E (distance DC is
The Slope Method has been designed to eliminate the need for
normally 2 to 3 times the maximum dimension of the system).
impractically long leads by the ability to interpolate the correct distance
3. Insert potential probes at distances equal to 20% of DC, 40% of DC along the combined resistance curve, i.e. the curve of the current probe’s
and 60% DC. See examples in step 4. resistance superimposed upon that of the tested grid, without sufficient
spacing to produce the characteristic “flat portion” between.
4. Measure the earth resistance using each potential probe in turn. Let
these resistance values be R1, R2 and R3 respectively.
Potential Spike
E P P P C
Examples: R1 = 0.2 x DC R2 = 0.4 x DC R3 = 0.6 x DC
0.2Dc 0.4Dc
0.6Dc Current
5. Calculate the value of R -R Spike
µ= 3 2
R2 - R1
Dc
14 Reference 23 Fig. 31: Potential probe locations for using the slope method

One particular observation on the Slope Method is that if the calculation of µ APPENDIX VI
is greater than that given in the table, the distance C must be increased. Four Potential Method
Secondly, before the measured values for R1, R2 and R3 can be accepted The Four Potential Method is another method based on fall-of-potential
with a degree of confidence, it is recommended that a curve be plotted that allows the user to overcome the problems posed by complex
which will identify any localized effects and eliminate uncharacteristic grounding systems where the electrical center of the ground system is
readings from the calculations. Thirdly, it is also suggested that the test be difficult to locate. This method was first introduced by Dr. G.F. Tagg in a
repeated in different directions and with different spacings. The various 1964 IEE paper15. For the purpose of this booklet, we will cover the test
results should exhibit a reasonable degree of agreement. method and the formulae by which the resistance of the ground system
can be determined. The theory behind the method will not be covered,
Table VII: Values of DP/Dc for Various Values of µ
although it links the resistance values obtained by measurements at six
µ DP/Dc µ DP/Dc µ DP/Dc
different positions for the potential probe in four formulae with the true
0.40 0.643 0.80 0.580 1.20 0.494 resistance (R∞), which would occur with an infinite distance to the
0.41 0.642 0.81 0.579 1.21 0.491
0.42 0.640 0.82 0.577 1.22 0.488 current probe.
0.43 0.639 0.83 0.575 1.23 0.486
0.44 0.637 0.84 0.573 1.24 0.483
0.45 0.636 0.85 0.571 1.25 0.480 The test probes are set out as shown in Figure 32, with measurement
0.46 0.635 0.86 0.569 1.26 0.477
0.47 0.633 0.87 0.567 1.27 0.474 made from the edge of the electrical system. The current probe is set a
0.48 0.632 0.88 0.566 1.28 0.471
0.49 0.630 0.89 0.564 1.29 0.468 suitable distance away from the edge of the ground system. The potential
0.50 0.629 0.90 0.562 1.30 0.465 probe is then placed at distances equal to 20%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%
0.51 0.627 0.91 0.560 1.31 0.462
0.52 0.626 0.92 0.558 1.32 0.458 and 80% of the distance to the current probe and a test is made at each
0.53 0.624 0.93 0.556 1.33 0.455 location. The resistance values obtained (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6) are
0.54 0.623 0.94 0.554 1.34 0.452
0.55 0.621 0.95 0.552 1.35 0.448 then entered into four formulae.
0.56 0.620 0.96 0.550 1.36 0.445
0.57 0.618 0.97 0.548 1.37 0.441
0.58 0.617 0.98 0.546 1.38 0.438 The formulae used follow:
0.59 0.615 0.99 0.544 1.39 0.434
0.60 0.614 1.00 0.542 1.40 0.431 1] (R∞) = -0.1187R1 – 0.4667R2 + 1.9816R4 – 0.3961R6
0.61 0.612 1.01 0.539 1.41 0.427
0.62 0.610 1.02 0.537 1.42 0.423
0.63 0.609 1.03 0.535 1.43 0.418 2] (R∞) = -2.6108R2 + 4.0508R3 – 0.1626R4 – 0.2774R6
0.64 0.607 1.04 0.533 1.44 0.414
0.65 0.606 1.05 0.531 1.45 0.410 3] (R∞) = -1.8871R2 + 1.1148R3 + 3.6837R4 – 1.9114R5
0.66 0.604 1.06 0.528 1.46 0.406
0.67 0.602 1.07 0.526 1.47 0.401
0.68 0.601 1.08 0.524 1.48 0.397 4] (R∞) = -6.5225R3 + 13.6816 R4 – 6.8803R5 + 0.7210R6
0.69 0.599 1.09 0.522 1.49 0.393
0.70 0.597 1.10 0.519 1.50 0.389
0.71 0.596 1.11 0.517 1.51 0.384
0.72 0.594 1.12 0.514 1.52 0.379
0.73 0.592 1.13 0.512 1.53 0.374
0.74 0.591 1.14 0.509 1.54 0.369
0.75 0.589 1.15 0.507 1.55 0.364
0.76 0.587 1.16 0.504 1.56 0.358
0.77 0.585 1.17 0.502 1.57 0.352
0.78 0.584 1.18 0.499 1.58 0.347
0.79 0.582 1.19 0.497 1.59 0.341 15 Reference 24

The four results for R∞ should substantially agree, and an average of the APPENDIX VII
results can be calculated. However, because of the assumptions made in Star Delta Method16
the theory of this method, it is possible that the result from equation (1) If the current probe is so close that it is within the field of the test
will be less accurate than the others. If the result from (1) is in variance ground, the mathematical proofs for the Slope Method and Intersecting
from the other results, it can be ignored and the average calculated from Curves will prove unintelligible and indicate to the operator that a better
the other three results. test position must be found. If this condition prevails, and room is so
One major drawback to this method is that it requires a large distance for limited that an acceptable spacing cannot be derived, it may be necessary
dc. This distance can range up to 2,000 feet or more for ground systems to resort to the Star-Delta Method. Named for the configuration of the
covering a large area or of very low resistance. test probes and lines of measurement (a graphic of it resembles the
familiar symbols for “delta” and “star” windings), this method saves
space by employing a tight configuration of three probes around the test
ground (Figure 33).
Fig 32: Four potential method test configuration
Fig 33: Star-Delta test configuration
16 Reference 25

In Figure 33, the ground electrode being tested is identified as “E.” Three Provided that the distances between “E” and the current probes is
current probes (P2, P3 and P4) are placed equidistant from “E” with a adequate (so the resistance areas do not overlap), the individual
120º angle between them. Separation of potential and current circuits is resistance of “E” can be determined as follows:
abandoned, and a series of two-point measurements (see Figure 34)
1] R1 = 1/3 [(R12 + R13 + R14) – (R23 + R34 + R42)/2]
made between all pairs of probes, and probes to the ground under test.
2] R1 = 1/2 (R12 + R13 – R23)
In isolation, the ground under test “E” has a resistance R1, and probes
P2, P3 and P4 have resistances R2, R3 and R4 respectively. In relation to 3] R1 = 1/2 (R12 + R14 – R42)
each other, the resistance between them is the sum of their individual
4] R1 = 1/2 (R13 + R14 – R34)
resistances (like two resistances in series). For example, if the resistances
of “E” and P2 were measured on a two-point system, their total If the result from equation 1 matches substantially that from the other
resistance would be R1 + R2. Therefore, when considered as a whole, the three equations, then satisfactory conditions have existed for the
Star-Delta resistance pattern is shown by the arrows between “E’ and the measurement. However, if one of the probes has been situated so that its
probes on Figure 1. The tests result in six measurements (R12, R13, R14, resistance area has overlapped that of “E” or another of the probes, an
R23, R34 and R42) that are then put through a mathematical “crunch” obviously false reading (perhaps even a negative value of resistance) will
of four series equations to calculate the resistance of the test ground. be obtained. A false reading warns the operator to redo the test.
Performing calculations to obtain the values of R2, R3 and R4 would
show which probe was at fault. The equations for R2, R3 and R4 follow:
R2 = 1/2 (R12 + R23 – R13)
R2 = 1/2 (R12 + R42 – R14)
R2 = 1/2 (R23 + R42 – R34)
R3 = 1/2 (R13 + R23 – R12)
R3 = 1/2 (R13 + R34 – R14)
R3 = 1/2 (R23 + R34 – R42)
R4 = 1/2 (R14 + R42 – R12)
R4 = 1/2 (R14 + R34 – R13)
R4 = 1/2 (R42 + R34 – R23)
Fig 34: Making a two-point measurement

APPENDIX VIII Step potential is obtained in a similar way. This is the potential difference
Determining Touch and Step Potential a person would experience between their feet if they walked over the
Touch potential is the term given to the potential difference a person ground in which a fault current existed.
might experience across their body if they were, for example, standing on
Terminals “C1” and “C2” on the earth tester are connected as described
the ground outside the earthed perimeter fence of a substation and
for determining touch potential. Terminals “P1” and “P2” are connected
touching the fence at the time a fault to earth occurred.
to two potential spikes set up for test purposes. The spikes are
To determine this value, an earth tester may first be used to find the hammered into the ground at positions “A” and “B” as shown in Fig. 35,
earth resistance. It is connected as shown in Fig. 35. about 3 ft apart (i.e., the approximate length of an average person’s
step). (Note: “A” is nearest to “E” and is connected to terminal “P1.”)
Terminal “C1” of the earth tester is connected to the grounding system
of the substation (e.g. at “E”) and terminal “C2” is connected to a The earth tester is operated in the normal way and a resistance
current spike “C” (set up for testing purposes some distance away). measurement is made. This is the effective resistance between “A” and
Terminal “P1” is connected to the structure being tested (e.g. the “B” as seen by the test current. Again, the maximum value of the current
perimeter fence which the person might touch) and terminal “P2” is that would flow in the earth under fault conditions at the substation
connected to a potential spike “P” which is inserted into the ground must be known.
about 3 ft away from the perimeter fence adjacent to the point of test on
The effective step potential can be calculated by multiplying the fault
the fence (i.e. where the person might stand).
current by the earth resistance, again within a reasonable accuracy.
The earth tester is operated in the normal way and a resistance
measurement made. This is the effective resistance between the point of
Grounded
test on the fence and the potential spike as seen by the test current. The Perimeter
Substation
Fence
maximum value of the current that would flow in the earth when a fault
occurred at the substation must be known. The maximum fault current
has to be calculated from parameters associated with the substation
ratings involved; it is not necessarily straight forward. E
P
The effective maximum touch potential can be calculated within a

B
reasonable margin of accuracy (about 20 percent, depending how true A
the earth resistance measurement is), by multiplying the fault current by

Substation Ground System
the earth resistance.
Fig. 35: Method of use for determining touch and step potential

APPENDIX IX
Ground Testing Methods Chart
*Method Best Applications Advantages Limitations
1. Fall of Potential Small electrode systems (1 or 2 rods/plates); Extremely reliable; conforms to IEEE 81; Requires long distances (and long test leads)
complex systems if full resistance curve is plotted operator has complete control of test set-up to the test probes on medium and large
systems; time consuming and labor
intensive
2. Simplified Fall Small and medium electrode systems Easier to carry out than full Fall of Potential; Ineffective if the electrical center is
of Potential much faster unknown; less accurate than full Fall of
Potential as less measurements are being
made
3. 61.8% Rule Small and medium electrode systems Simplest to carry out; minimal calculation; Assumes perfect conditions; ineffective if
fewest number of test probe moves electrical center is unknown; soil must be
homogeneous; less accurate
4. Slope Large ground systems like substations Knowledge of electrical center not Susceptible to non-homogeneous soil; less
necessary; long distances to test probes not accurate; requires math
necessary
5. Intersecting Large ground systems like substations Knowledge of electrical center not Numerous calculations and drawing of
Curves necessary; long distances to test probes not curves
necessary
6. Dead Earth Not recommended Quick and simple to perform Problems of possible resistance overlap;
(Two Point) non-metallic (high resistance) return
7. Star Delta Ground systems located in congested urban areas and/or rocky Long distances for test probe positioning Resistance areas should not overlap; a
terrain where probe positioning is difficult not necessary number of calculations required
8. Four Potential Medium to large ground systems Knowledge of electrical center not necessary Long distances to test probes is still
required; a number of calculations required
9. Clamp-On Simple ground system with existing return path Quick, easy; includes bonding and overall Effective only in situations with multiple
through multiple grounds connection resistance grounds in parallel; susceptible to noise; no
basis in standards; no built-in proof
*The Attached Rod Technique (ART) is based on Fall of Potential

GROUND TESTERS AVAILABLE FROM MEGGER® DET4TD

The DET4TD (part of Megger’s Contractor Series of earth/ground
DET10C and DET20C resistance testers) is a four-terminal digital model designed to measure
ground resistance from 0.01 Ω to 2000 Ω and earth voltages up to 100
The DET10C and DET20C measure earth/ground resistance
V. As a four-terminal unit, the DET4TD can also be used to make earth
and current flow by the clamp-on method. These models
resistivity measurements. The unit is supplied complete with a carrying
measure ground resistance from 0.025 Ω to 1550 Ω and
case, test leads and probes.
ground leakage current from 0.2 mA to 35 A. Both models
have extra large jaws (1.36 in/35 mm) and weigh only 1.65 DET5/4R and DET5/4D
lbs (750 g). The DET20C includes data storage and The DET5/4R and DET5/4D are four-terminal
download capability. digital models designed to measure ground
DET3TD resistance from 0.01 Ω to 2000 Ω. As four-
terminal units, they can also be used to make
The DET3TD (part of Megger’s Contractor Series of earth/ground
earth resistivity measurements. The DET5/4R
resistance testers) is a three-terminal digital model designed to measure
comes with rechargeable batteries while the DET5/4D uses dry cells.
V. The unit is supplied complete with a carrying case, test leads and DET2/2
probes. The incomparable DET2/2 is a four-terminal digital
DET3TA model designed to operate in the most difficult
(and electrically noisy) of test environments and
The DET3TA (part of Megger’s Contractor Series of earth/ground
for use on large, critical ground systems. This
resistance testers) is a three-terminal analog model designed to measure
model has an extra digit of resolution (to 0.001)
on readings and includes an interference filter, test
V. The unit is supplied complete with a carrying case, test leads and
current control and, most important, adjustable test current frequency
probes.
(105-160 Hz). As a four-terminal unit, the DET2/2 can also be used to
DET3TC make earth resistivity measurements.
The DET3TC (part of Megger’s Contractor Series of earth/ground 250260
resistance testers) is a three-terminal digital model that
The model 250260 Direct Reading Ground Tester is
includes Attached Rod Technique (ART) capability.
the most successful tester ever introduced to the
It is designed to measure ground resistance from
market. Its reputation for reliable measurement and
0.01 Ω to 2000 Ω and earth voltages up to 100 V.
field operation has made it required equipment in
With the optional clamp, it will measure ground
the Standard Operating Procedures of major
current from 0.5 mA to 19.9 A. The unit is
organizations. The mechanical analog movement,
supplied complete with a carrying case, test leads
ranging from 0.5 to 500 Ω, makes the tester a reliable tool under the
and probes.
worst of weather extremes.

References 14. “Grounding Principles and Practices - Establishing Grounds,” C.H.

1. “Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission System,” E.D. Sunde, Jensen, AIEE (IEEE), Elect. Eng., February 1945, also AIEE (IEEE)
D. Van Nostrand Co. Publications S2.
2. “Earth Resistances,” G.F. Tagg, George Newnes Limited, London 15. “Deep Driven Grounds,” C.H. Jensen, EEI, T&D Committee,
(1964). May 1951.
3. “Principles and Practices in Grounding,” Pub. No. D9, Edison Electric 16. “Grounding Principles and Practices - Static Electricity in Industry,”
Institute. Beach, AIEE (IEEE) Publication S2.
4. “Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding,” AIEE (IEEE) No. 80. 17. “Corrosion of Buried Metals and Cathodic Protection,” M.C. Miller,
Petroleum Engineer, March, April, May, June 1944.
5. “Recommended Guide for Measuring Ground Resistance and
Potential Gradients in the Earth.” AIEE (IEEE) No. 81. 18. “An Experience With the Megger,” W.H. Simpson, Oil and Gas
Journal.
6. “Master Test Code for Resistance Measurement, AIEE (IEEE) No. 550.
19. “Ground Connections for Electrical Systems,” O.S. Peters, U.S.
7. “Some of the Fundamental Aspects of Ground Resistance National Bureau of Standards, Technological Paper 108, June 20,
Measurement, E.B. Curdts, AIEE (IEEE) Paper No. 58-106, 1918 (224 pages - now out of print).
Transactions, Vol. 77, 1958.
20. “Practical Grounding Principles and Practices for Securing Safe
8. “Equipment Grounding,” Industrial Power System Data Book, Dependable Grounds,” Publication of Copperweld Steel Co.,
General Electric Co. Glassport, Pa.
9. “Grounding Electric Circuits Effectively,” J.R. Eaton, General Electric 21. “Nomograph Determines Ground-Rod Resistance,” L.E. Whitehead,
Review, June, July, August 1941. Electric Light & Power, December 1962.
10. “A Method of Measuring Earth Resistivity,” F. Wenner, Report No. 22. “Measurement of the Resistance of An Earth-Electrode System
258, Bulletin of Bureau of Standards, Vol. 12, No. 3, Oct. 11, 1915. Covering a Large Area.” Dr. G. Tagg; IEE Proceedings, Vol. 116,
11. “Calculation of Resistance to Ground,” H.B. Dwight, AIEE (IEEE) Mar. 1969.
Transactions, Vol. 55, 1936. 23. “Measurement of the Resistance of Large Earth-Electrode Systems
12. “Lightning Arrester Grounds,” H.M. Towne, General Electric Review, by the Slope Method.” Dr. G. Tagg; IEE Proceedings, Vol. 117,
Parts I, II, III, Vol. 35, pp. 173, 215, 280, March, April, May 1932. Nov. 1970.
13. “Grounding Principles and Practices-Fundamental Considerations on 24. Paper 4619S from the proceedings of the IEE volume III No. 12
Ground Currents,” R. Rudenberg AIEE ( IEEE), Elect. Eng., January December 1964 by Dr. G.F. Tagg
1946, Also AIEE (IEEE) Publication S2. 25. Developed by W. Hymers and published in “Electrical Review”,
January 1975

Megger makes
more than just
earth/ground
testers
Megger also makes high quality instruments for the following electrical
testing applications:
n Insulation Testing n Battery Testing

n Relay Testing n Watthour Meter Testing
n Oil Testing n Transformer Testing
n Circuit Breaker Testing n Cable Fault Locating
n Power Quality Analysis n Power Factor Testing
n Low Resistance Testing n Hi Pot Testing
Megger manufactures electrical test and maintenance instruments for

electric power, process manufacturing, building wiring, engineering
services and communications.
Visit our website for local assistance worldwide at www.megger.com.

MEG-456/MIL/5M/11.2005
Megger
4271 Bronze Way
Dallas, TX 75237
The word "Megger" is a registered trademark

Earth Resistance Testing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earth Resistance Testing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GDTE.

qxp 12/2/05 8:35 AM Page 1

©2005 Megger www.megger.com

GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX I

2 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 3

TABLE OF FIGURES Safety

4 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 5

SECTION I Factors That Can Change Your Minimum Earth Resistance

6 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 7

Fig. 2: Example of an electrical circuit with too high an earth resistance

8 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 9

10 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 11

where ρ is the resistivity of the earth in ohm-cm, L is the length of the

12 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 13

14 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 15

16 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 17

18 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 19

20 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 21

4.0% x 1.2 = 4.8%

22 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 23

24 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 25

26 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 27

Fig. 13: Comparative resistance

28 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 29

30 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 31

9 B = 1/20A is generally recommended

32 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 33

Practical Example of Test Method10 Type of Soil Affects Resistivity

Table II: Resistivities of Different Soils*

34 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 35

36 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 37

Seasonal Variations in Earth Resistivity

38 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 39

40 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 41

Checking the earth resistance of a ground system at a substation using

42 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 43

44 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 45

(See text in Appendix I.)

46 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 47

The clamp-on ground testing method, although it does not conform to

48 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 49

Fig 23: Pole ground application

50 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 51

Fig 24: Cellular tower — example of a misused application

52 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 53

Fig 26: Leakage current measurements

54 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 55

Using ART method with Megger DET3TC

56 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 57

Fig. 28: Earth resistance curve applicable to systems of a large area

58 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 59

Fig. 29: Earth resistance curves for a substation

Ground test being performed on building ground using a DET3TC

60 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 61

62 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 63

64 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 65

Fig 32: Four potential method test configuration

Fig 33: Star-Delta test configuration

66 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 67

68 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 69

The effective maximum touch potential can be calculated within a

the earth resistance measurement is), by multiplying the fault current by

70 GETTING DOWN TO EARTH GETTING DOWN TO EARTH 71